SP2

"kony" wrote in message
...
On 3 Oct 2004 19:01:40 -0400,
lid (kozlikha) wrote:

What are the consequences of not upgrading to SP2?

The computer works fine now, i have Norton Firewall, Antivirus, Go
Back and Ad-aware installed.

I have tried to install SP2 earlier and Windows would not load up. I
have managed to uninstall Go Back program and performed a system
restore.

Thank God it's all back to normal and works now. I am not proficient
in computers and would not know what and how to upgrade to enable
smooth installation of SP2.

So the question remains, whether it is NECESSARY to do so.

No, not necessary. It has a few security features but if
you're REALLY into security you're not using IE or OE
anymore regardless of patches, they are the two biggest
holes in XP.

Here's an itemized list of what you're missing:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/features.mspx

Most of the features are more for novice users that don't
already have experience, practices and procedures for
dealing with these issues already in place. For the most
part it's painless if your apps still work, but it's not a
"must-have" update by any stretch...

In the long run SP2 is a MUST HAVE for the average computer user.

"Mike Walsh" wrote in message
...

Disable the Messenger service (it is disabled by default with SP2) don't
use Internet Explorer or outlook/outlook express and you will have a secure
system.

And that advice is reasonable for what percentage of the user base? Would a
real computer pro take that advive?

"Keith Willcocks" wrote in
message ...

"kozlikha" wrote in message
...
What are the consequences of not upgrading to SP2?



I have no confidence in SP2. It causes problems with Windows own
Internet
Connection Service causing the client computer's link to drop out
intermittently, so I turned the firewall off and went back to Zone Alarm
(version 4.5, their version 5 does the same as SP2). Then it told me
that
my Norton Anti-virus 2003 was too old and I should fork out for a later
version, so I turned off the Anti Virus monitor as well. Then Nero
Burning
Rom came up with a message that it had known problems with the operating
system, and that finished up with a 50+ megabyte download from Nero. I
think Mr gates should put SP2 where the sun don't shine.

All known weaknesses in your existant environment. SP2 works just fine.
Norton/
Symantec causes problems with everything and most are abandoning it.....

"Gojira" wrote in message
news:MRf8d.2821$j34.2435@trndny05...
I agree,the MS newsgroups were flooded with complaints almost immediately
following it's release.

Not flooded. The amount was MUCH less than anticipated. NGs distill the
problems. Most don't come to NGs because SP2 works fine.

An update shouldn't cause so many problems,it seems
ruhed,poorly developed,and even more poorly tested.

There is not the slightest evidence to support that.

"Skeleton Man" wrote in message
...
What are the consequences of not upgrading to SP2?

No future robust XP support from MS. Do SP2 as ultimately there is no
choice. SP2 works just fine for the vast majority of folks.

I beg to differ.. my experiences have been quite the opposite..
individuals
and businesses.. I've seen nothing but trouble with SP2..

Regards,
Chris

"kozlikha" wrote in message
...
BIG thanks for your replies. I just hope that if I don't install SP2,
there will be no future conflicts between software updates.

OF COURSE there will be.

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:49:28 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message
.. .
On 3 Oct 2004 19:01:40 -0400,
lid (kozlikha) wrote:

What are the consequences of not upgrading to SP2?

The computer works fine now, i have Norton Firewall, Antivirus, Go
Back and Ad-aware installed.

I have tried to install SP2 earlier and Windows would not load up. I
have managed to uninstall Go Back program and performed a system
restore.

Thank God it's all back to normal and works now. I am not proficient
in computers and would not know what and how to upgrade to enable
smooth installation of SP2.

So the question remains, whether it is NECESSARY to do so.

No, not necessary. It has a few security features but if
you're REALLY into security you're not using IE or OE
anymore regardless of patches, they are the two biggest
holes in XP.

Here's an itemized list of what you're missing:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/features.mspx

Most of the features are more for novice users that don't
already have experience, practices and procedures for
dealing with these issues already in place. For the most
part it's painless if your apps still work, but it's not a
"must-have" update by any stretch...

In the long run SP2 is a MUST HAVE for the average computer user.


LOL, you're starting to sound like DaveW.

"Must have" is nonsense. If we want to nitpick, the average
user shouldn't even think about applying ANY service
packs... how many "average users" do you know that could
even get their systems running again if windows (just)
didn't load? Sure that can format and reinstall everything,
not knowing what went wrong. Or, they could slipstream SP2,
but how many "average users" even know what a slipstream is?

The average user doesn't monitor ports, disable services,
and has a half dozen spywares on their system at any given
time. The best thing an average user could do is simply
ditch as much as MS's SW as possible, not adding to it's
complexity in any way, including SP2.

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:49:35 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:


"Mike Walsh" wrote in message
...

Disable the Messenger service (it is disabled by default with SP2) don't
use Internet Explorer or outlook/outlook express and you will have a secure
system.

And that advice is reasonable for what percentage of the user base? Would a
real computer pro take that advive?



Most of them.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:49:35 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:


"Mike Walsh" wrote in message
...

Disable the Messenger service (it is disabled by default with SP2)
don't
use Internet Explorer or outlook/outlook express and you will have a
secure
system.

And that advice is reasonable for what percentage of the user base?
Would a
real computer pro take that advive?



Most of them.

Not hardly. Most real pros want to be running what their customers are
using.

"kony" wrote in message

The average user doesn't monitor ports, disable services,
and has a half dozen spywares on their system at any given
time.

Yep, that's why they should install SP2 and use the MS firewall along with
AVG and Adaware and turn on Automatic Updates.

The best thing an average user could do is simply
ditch as much as MS's SW as possible,

And that allows us all to dismiss you as 90% of the world runs MS on PCs.

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:12:54 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message

The average user doesn't monitor ports, disable services,
and has a half dozen spywares on their system at any given
time.

Yep, that's why they should install SP2 and use the MS firewall along with
AVG and Adaware and turn on Automatic Updates.


No, that does not solve the problem.


The best thing an average user could do is simply
ditch as much as MS's SW as possible,

And that allows us all to dismiss you as 90% of the world runs MS on PCs.

So we are in agreement that 90% of the world is not
concerned about what's best regarding security?
If so, then what argument remains for SP2?
90% of the world does not run winXP.